Digepix, I'm very glad you've truly come to find the answer, as it most importantly pertains to you. Considering all the parameters you've mentioned, I'm not surprised that you have found your power requirements to be somewhat modest, and in keeping with the speaker manufactures suggested range. I would caution others not to jump to conclusions about the superiority of low power vs. high power, as the samples used in this case varied in too many other ways.
I'm truly impressed that you were able to do the Herculean endeavor of moving all those amps around, including a 100 Watt Krell(!), all the while in a wheel chair. Too bad Audiogon has removed the e-mail function from this site. Though some of us often disagree, I'm confident that if any of us were in your locale, some would have gladly offered you a hand.
Relax and enjoy. You deserve it. |
I have had similarly inefficient speakers, the Magnepan Tympanis, the 3.3s and now the 3.7s. I first heard the Tympanis with an ARC D79 and they sounded wonderful but needed more power. Same thing with the 3.3s and a VAC 65 watt amp.
I switched to a McCormack DNA Power Drive 1 and had much better results although they didn't have the openness and bloom I had come to expect with a tube amp. The 3.7s are driven with an Audio Research VT200 and they need the 200 watts per side.
I would never go back to a smaller amp, no matter how sweet they may sound at lower listening levels. |
I finally answered my own question tonight. I took my 50 w YBA, 100w Krell and 250w Parasound along with a Radio Shack SPL meter and did a comparison. First of all a took the most dynamic cd I own, the soundtrack for "Kansas City" and found that from my listening position I was registering 95 db peaks at the volume I preferred sitting 1.5 m from the speakers in my 10 x 12 room. I'm figuring I'm using 16 watts on the peaks and less than a watt at my normal 80 db volume. I cycled each amp through the system and although I could sense the ease with the Krell and the Parasound I preferred the natural timbre and presentation of the YBA. I realize the YBA was working harder but even so the presentation of the music never changed. The Krell and the Parasound sound like you're shifting gears as you increase the volume. Thanks for all your responses. Doing the swap out was tough from the wheelchair but I guess the only way to decide is to listen for yourself. |
When I first got hooked in the mid 90's I went from 100 watts to 300 then finally 500 watts. At each change better sound in all regards. In 2010 when I went from 500 to 1200 watts same thing better sound, and better at low volumes ei. .1 watts. These were and are transistors, maybe its different for tubes but with SS and full range speakers I will except no substitute. There is an ease to the music that I've only experienced with high power,YMMV. |
When I used to sell audio gear back in the 70's, the more powerful amps/receivers in any particular line ALWAYS sounded better on all but perhaps the smallest and most limited speakers. Most lines covered anywhere from 15, 20, 40, 80, 100 120 watts with the various models.
SOme lines sounded better than others at similar power points but a 40 watt amp never trumped a more powerful one with any decent line.
Nothing has changed there in general these days as best I can tell. |
"it is at the same time nice to not be able to come anywhere near clipping the amps regardless of the source or the volume setting. Certain LPs, like the Soria Verdi Requiem, demand this ability!"
Bingo!
I agree 100%. That's the insurance policy as I like to refer to it.
Atmas, you like 140 tube watts I assume with the 98 db efficient speakers. That would be a nice insurance policy I would think! |
02-16-12: Larryi
I cannot think of any speaker that is so inefficient that one would be listening to it at an average output of 30 watts so that a 10 db peak would require 300 watts. Have you ever made any attempt to measure your power needs objectively or are you guessing? Objectively, 30 watts is not enough power to avoid clipping on music peaks of over 100dB for typical room and speakers though listening levels are not just a function of amplifier power but room reinforcement, room resonances, and room sound absorption all have a significant influence on the power requirements too. What compromise have you observed with well engineered high powered amplifiers? In my experience audiophiles under-estimate their power needs. |
I agree that dynamic range is often a problem- and that clipping on transients is more common that we care to admit. In that regard (IMO) it is the clipping character of the amp that often part of the amplifier's reputation.
My speakers are 98 db/1 watt, and I like to have 140 watt amps to drive them. The amps I am using have more nuance than their smaller brothers so I get away with this, as quite often the meters on the amps indicate that they are making far less than even 1 watt. But it is at the same time nice to not be able to come anywhere near clipping the amps regardless of the source or the volume setting. Certain LPs, like the Soria Verdi Requiem, demand this ability! |
"It certainly is not, in my experience, Class D switching amps. It is too early to predict where further improvements in that technology will take performance of that technology, so there is hope there, but right now, the amps I heard fall short of the best conventional solid state gear."
Larry, is that an opinion or do you have some facts to support?
My experience is different. Personal preferences may result in not liking Class D, or Class D may not always integrate well with the rest of the system, like any amp, but my assessment is that the performance can be competitive with other amps I have heard in other very good systems. |
I cannot think of any speaker that is so inefficient that one would be listening to it at an average output of 30 watts so that a 10 db peak would require 300 watts.
Yes, with inefficient speakers something more than 30 watts may be needed where one listens at very high average levels as a safe margin to avoid clipping. But, that does not appear to be the practice of the original poster. If that margin came for "free" then of course go with higher power. But, nothing is free--one has to compromise other aspects of performance. Yes, it is possible that a whole new technology may come along and erase most, if not all, of the compromises need to deliver high power, but I've not heard it yet.
It certainly is not, in my experience, Class D switching amps. It is too early to predict where further improvements in that technology will take performance of that technology, so there is hope there, but right now, the amps I heard fall short of the best conventional solid state gear.
It is a matter of personal preference and priority. For me, good performance at low volume levels is a high priority and the ability to deliver satisfying detail, weight, and dynamic contrasts at low volume is more important than high volume performance because I very rarely want to listen at head banging levels.
I know people often do calculations of power needs based on supposed real life concert levels. Those calculations don't reflect practical use of a system. Classical music has a massive dynamic range, so, in theory, a lot of headroom is needed. But, in reality, recordings NEVER deliver the dynamic range of a real concert (probably most listeners would not like a realistic range because the music would be too soft in quiet passages). If one set the volume level at peaks to match concert level peaks, the average level would be unrealistically loud. As for rock music, I hardly need my system to play at concert level to get the juices jumping. If my system did not sound WAY better than any live rock concert and if it needed to be played at anywhere near live concert level to sound good, I would junk it.
I have found that, as my system has improved over the years, I want to listen to it at lower, not higher, volume levels. |
Kiwi,
I suspected this was the case but it was only once I pulled out all stops and went with the 500w/ch Class D BelCanto Ref1000m monoblocks that I became convinced.
I've had several amps in my rig prior with the relatively hard to drive OHMs and Dynaudios up to 200w/ch or so. The BCs are the first to always play effortlessly at any reasonable volume with no signs of running out of gas. Effortlessly means transients are clean and crisp even as the volume goes up.
I did have a 360w/ch Carver amp originally that went plenty loud enough, but that amp had Carver's tube transfer function technology and did not have the guts to drive the current hungry OHMs or Dyns as well at any volume. |
02-13-12: Mapman
If an amp is clipping, there is a good chance the sound quality is negatively affected well before any any clearly audible distortion is noticed. Better to have an amp that goes loud effortlessly to provide headroom before any clipping comes into play. One might be surprisec what is needed to do this for less efficient speakers. The difference can be subtle but very significant. With the exception of very efficient switching Class D amps, some weight and size is usually required. Completely agree Mapman. I am of the opinion that most audiophiles underestimate the amount of power they need. 30 watts of power might be adequate to reproduce music at average levels for a typical speaker /room, but musical peaks can require 10x average power. Most audiophiles simply don't recognize when their amps are clipping. This is because the clipping usually only occurs on musical peaks where it is very transient, and does not occur at the average power level. Transient clipping is not recognized as clipping by most listeners because the average levels are relatively much longer than the peaks. Since the average levels aren't obviously distorted, the listeners think the amp is performing within its design parameters -- even when it is not... |
I think the power would drop to 27 watts on the 4 ohm tap driving 8 ohms (roughy) - in fact that is the way I use them with the Merlins - light loaded. Lower distortion, less stress on tubes, and more peak power for transients (not sure why, but Roger says it is so). |
The RM-10 is one of the best value amplifiers in production. The 35 watts was enough for the designer to use not only with Vandersteen's, but his Quad 57's and his own brand of ESL speakers. It is quite a versatile amp as it can be "light" loaded to reduce distortion and run the circuit more efficiently with less stress on the tubes, although there will be a reduction in power. The reduced power in a small room with speakers that have a smooth impedance curve this should not be an issue IMO. Try the 4 ohm taps or run the speaker leads from the 4 and 8 ohm taps which in parallel give you two ohms and see how the amp sounds. You might be surprised. |
"There are also those that think that deep, tight bass is the be-all-and-end-all of musical reproduction and those people, too, might find anything less than 200 watts to be inadequate. The rest of the crowd really don't need that much power."
Deep tight bass is very important to me but not the be-all-end-all. That's just one piece of the puzzle. But to get that one right, yes in many cases beefy amplification is exactly what is needed to get that right, but I find the rest need not suffer as a result and in fact can also still be top notch. It all depends.... |
OOps, clicked too soon again. I not convinced that a similar circuit producing less volume will always sound better that a scaled up version of the same circuit producing more power. Sure, I've heard the argument that it's harder to match more output devices. On the other hand, if those collective devices can maintain their maximum potential before strain longer, it's quite possible that the higher powered amp might sound better. Furthermore, in some Class AB amps, there is a given % of bias in Class A before sliding into Class B. Therefore, the same circuit with greater power output can maintain the often preferred Class A bias longer. ...And all this with less of the worrisome anticipation of strain or even worse clipping. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule here. IME, it depends on the line of amplifiers being considered. The sweet spot in a line of amps can be at the low, middle or high output. Heck, sometimes samples to samples might vary. The application is the most important concern. IME, I'd rather have a little too much power (awarding a generous grace period if you will), rather than not enough. |
FWIW, all other things being equal, a speaker that's capable of true live volume peaks would be better. With that said, my priorities and budget considerations would let me compromise on ultimate sheer live volume levels before other considerations. Still, for me an otherwise fine speaker like the Quad ESL's don't cut it. Though it really comes down to what the given room could accommodate, I would prefer that a speaker could at least cleanly produce about 100 dB volume peaks. I really don't think the occasional symphony crescendo is really going to do long term damage to ones ears, it's the sustained high stadium volume rock concert thing that causes long term hearing damage. Just having a system that can achieve a scaled to the room volume level of a live performance, without the worrying anticipation of oncoming distortion or even just strain, makes the listening so much more enjoyable. |
Digepix,
I hardly think that success with the RM 10 goes against common wisdom, at least with respect to the tube crowd. Thirty-five watts is plenty of power for the majority of speakers on the market, as long as one is not playing the speakers at extremely high volume in a very large room. There are also those that think that deep, tight bass is the be-all-and-end-all of musical reproduction and those people, too, might find anything less than 200 watts to be inadequate. The rest of the crowd really don't need that much power.
I am not surprised that you like the sound of the RM 10. A good El 84 amp will have the kind of clarity and punchy sound that would complement something like Vandersteen 2s and 3s. Many of the best bargain tube amps use that tube.
You should ignore "common wisdom" of the high-powered crowd and go with your own experience-- you seem to have clear preferences that are certainly NOT inconsistent with what a lot of others hear. By acknowledging that low-power gear CAN work with your Vandersteens, you expand the possible choices that could deliver satisfaction, at perhaps a substantial savings.
Just a handful of suggestions: Atmasphere's 30 watt OTL, tube amps from Audiospace (Hong Kong), tube amps from Synthesis (Italy), tube amps from DeHavilland, solid state First Watt J2 (25 watts). |
I think the thread has run its course regarding OP, but the theoretical discussion continues - I'll stand by the position that an amp circuit sounds its best when asked to produce less rather than more power - and if the power thus produce is adequate to drive a speaker, the better we are served. Give me a great sounding speaker capable of 89db or higher, 92-94db or more preferable, then the ability to use as 15-30watts amp makes for audio nirvana. I know, lot's of ifs..... |
Digepix, sounds like you've found your answer. Good listenig.:-) |
Unsound..There is a couch behind the wheelchair and there is no place to back up to. You are right the Vandys are somewhat dark sounding and the Krell can be as well. When I bought the YBA preamp and amp the guy told me take them home for a week or so and pay me if you like them. They don't have the tight bass of the Krell but they provide a synergy with the Vandersteens that works nicely. The are brighter than the Krell and help to balance out the sound. I've had them for 15+ years and never thought to ask if there is something more until I heard the Music Reference RM 10. Again they are fairly low power but they just do things right with the Vandersteens. This goes against popular wisdom that Vandersteens need power because they are inefficient. My taste is to listen at a pleasant volume I've never pushed the speakers hard. I was an audiologist by trade so I know how a little volume over time can do damage to ones hearing. |
I like 'the amp of the month club'. Never joined, never will and couldn't pass the physical!
However, given 2 identical impedance measuring speakers....they will react very differently to the same amp based on::
1. Phase data for the speaker. Reactance kills
2. Amps ability to drive such reactive loads.
To your last point of 'how much power is required' please add speaker reactance. Just my opinion, but the 'low impedance' / 'low sensitivity' = bad load thing has been repeated so often that as wrong as it is, has become a form of truth.
A dozen or more posts back, somebody drug Harbeth into the discussion. Low sensitivity? yes, in general. But easily driven by a 50x2 tube amp. The Harbeth? generally low reactance. 'Tube friendly', perhaps. |
Opps, hit the click to quick. I haven't heard the YBA's in some time, and honestly don't have a recollection of their sound. With that said, the Krells, have legendary tight bass, something that could help with the Vandys somewhat woolly bass. On the other hand despite claims to the contrary, the upper end of the Krells are not bright, in fact they're a bit dark. I think some confuse the bit of grain that Krells produce in this area with brightness. In any event, the Vandys can be a bit dark in this region too. So you might be concerned about doubling up on those traits. |
Unless there is something behind you, the wheel chair might actually be an advantage in this particular case.
In answer to your question, I'm not sure if the YBA or the Krell will sound better, but I'd think the Krell would work more effortlessly. If that effortlessness makes for better sound, only you can decide. I suspect it could. |
Unsound I'm limited to location, because I'm in an apartment and this is the only place that works and I'm also in a wheelchair full time. The absorptive material might work I have to look into that. |
Again, with inefficient speakers or speakers that present really difficult loads for amps, one must take that into consideration when purchasing an amp and really review the amps specifications and try them out personally before purchasing. The amp is designed to drive particular loads under particular circumstances and the size of the room, acoustics, distance from the speakers are are included into the decision. Just how hard does the amp has to work to drive the speakers. All speakers are not the same because their load impedance changes over frequency and power bandwith and the amp used must be able to handle that cleanly and operate within specifications. I would have a very hard time purchasing an 86 db "efficient" speaker unless I knew for sure that the amp to be used could handle the room and speaker. This is where being in the amp of the month club comes in. experimental purchasing without in-home demonstration. Which frustrates so many that want to get into this "hobby". But the more efficient the speaker, the less power I need to drive it. Hence 10 wpc amps driving horn speakers and you are blasted out of the room at 10 watts. Speakers move air and for traditional drivers, to move air means that the actual driver has to move. To move that driver takes power. How much power required depends on the load of the speaker, the speaker's efficiency rating and the room size and acoustics.
enjoy |
Digepix, if you have a solid wall 3' behind the listening position, you might want to consider putting some absorptive material on that wall behind you, and moving your sitting position further back from the speakers. Not only will you get the rather considerable (with Vandersteens) benefits of driver integration and all advantages that come with it, you just might get better bass response at the listening position as well. |
Generally speaking, phase coherence without time coherence negates the advantages. Most speakers that are time and phase coherent tend to have impedance's that generally work better with ss. |
YEs, so bottom line, personally, for mainly lower volume near field listening in smaller quarters, I would be more inclined in general to go exclusively with speakers that are easy to drive and more phase coherent at close range due to proximity of drivers and I would give strong consideration to more moderate powered tube amplification to drive them. |
It has more to do with the transients in digital recordings compared to most vinyl. PLaying a record is a physical process involving mass and inertia that inhibits the ability to deliver transients. The fact is historically most vinyl rigs/record players do not handle this very well, although many more modern, high tech and expensive rigs probably do better.
Often or typically the result is a natural and perhaps even pleasant filtering of transients that makes the signal easier for an amp to deliver. The more this occurs, the easier for the amp, often with pleasant sounding results nonetheless.
DIgital involves no physics of mass and inertia. Another way to describe what you are talking about is raw bandwidth. If you have bandwidth, you also have risetime- the two are related. Most analog has more bandwidth (remember CD4 from the 1970s?) than most digital, in addition most amps have more bandwidth than either analog or digital. So the transient theory can't explain your observations. |
"but, I would certainly given them a try because nothing perks up the sound of dynamically polite speakers like OTLs."
Do they ever! |
And Harbeth makes total sense given the amp and setup - sweet indeed. |
|
In a big room sitting farther away from the speakers it works with a higher powered amp. In my current situation sitting near field with a solid wall 3 feet behind me it would just overload the space and clipping distortion would be the least of my problems. Richard Vandersteen set the power range on these speakers from 40-160 watts so I've had both extremes and for my situation the lower powered amp is doing just fine. People say YBA is a little light in the bass but any more would just cause other problems. |
DIg,
Oh, so you actually have run the Vandy's off the larger Krell in the past!
So what is your take on your question based on your recollection of how that sounded compared to what you have now?
Whether any particular setup floats your boat or not is all that really matters.
Harbeth would sound much different than VAndersteen in general I would expect. We all need some change in our lives sometimes. |
All this talk about power, when there is so much more to great sound. Power/headroom is nice for the .001% of the time that the music hits a demanding peak. If one has to make sacrifices in other areas of performance for such ability, is it really worth it?
I think a lot of people vastly overestimate the amount of power they really need because power is the one dimension of performance that can easily be measured and understood.
I like the sound of all of the Vandersteen speakers I've heard. At each price point, they represent great value--well rounded performance, no glaring problems or weaknesses, and a nice musical presentation. For my personal taste and priorities, if there is one area where I would most like an improvement in this line of speakers, it would be in terms of immediacy and "jump" (liveliness and microdynamics--the kind of thing high efficiency speakers tend to be better at delivering). I don't think this is something that is delivered by more power (I want to hear this at lower volumes than at high volume), and the more lively a system sounds, the more one tends to listen at a lower average volume. I have not heard Vandersteens with OTLs, but, I would certainly given them a try because nothing perks up the sound of dynamically polite speakers like OTLs. Atmasphere stated that the Vandersteens were easy to drive so I would expect that his OTL models would be a potential match. |
I had the Vandersteens in a house driven by a 200 watt Krell and I was sitting back 7 or 8 feet in a 20 x 25 room. Now my first wife is gone..the Krell is gone all that remains are the Vandersteens. I'm saving for a pair of Harbeth speakers and sell the Vandersteens, time and finances will tell. |
The thing is music music is a lot more complex than any test signal. Transient response is different technically from clipping, however I suspect the two are related. AN amp that does not tend to clip should be able to handle transients better, though there is more to it than just that.
An analogy is can a water balloon be inflated instantaneously when required. A lot faster when there is sufficient volume of water and pressure (similar to voltage and current ie power in electronics).
Similar with transient response an amp that does not break a sweat handling the peaks (ie does not clip) is more likely to have the drive needed for fast transients when needed as well. Not to say that less powerful amps with good design may not also do quite well with transients, but I think that would be more hit or miss and clipping could become an issue.
The Class D (switching) Bel Canto ref1000m amps I use with my inefficient hard to drive speakers are champs to me at this. They are very efficient and very powerful, articulate at lower volume and also seem to never break a sweat. Clipping is a non issue as best I can tell with these. Not so with most any other amp up to 200 w/ch or so that I have tried. |
Unsound, you make a very good point, the Vandersteens might be the last speaker on earth (ok, I'm exagerating)you would use nearfield - with all that time alignment and phase coherecy stuff built into its design ethos. Of course they can still be enjoyed, but not really optimal placement for the way VS works across the line. |
While I disagree with Mapman's suggestion that digital handles transients better than analog (and this is not meant to start yet another digital/analog debate) I think he makes a good and very important point about the issue of power reserves and dynamics.
We tend to focus on this issue, and how it relates to clipping, in terms of it's effect on the "sound" of the music and the onset of audible tonal/harmonic distortion as the amplifier approaches clipping. We tend to overlook the distortion of the dynamic flow of the music which is more subtle but just as important. Well before we hear any obvious harmonic distortion, as the amplifier approaches clipping there can be a diminution in the ease of the dynamic nuances in the music. There don't necessarily have to be a lot of transients in the music for inadequate power reserves to have an effect on playback. If the music is very complex as many orchestral works can be, with many instruments playing at once including percussion and loud brass, the effects of inadequate power reserves can be obvious. Sure, a good 35 watt amp can sound more pure and sweet than the 200 watt version of a similar circuit, but what good is that little bit of extra purity if (for example) when listening to a well recorded trumpet
with orchestra, it has natural and exciting speed and dynamic flow when playing pianissimo-mezzoforte (pp-mf), but as soon as the entire string section and percussion join in it sounds slow and compressed as the trumpet approaches what should be a real-life fortissimo (ff). It really puts a damper on the music, and I hear this effect wether it's vinyl or digital if the amp doesn't have plenty of reserves. |
I wonder if the OP should be more concerned about sitting so close to the Vandersteens than the question at hand. The Vandersteens are fine a product and a terrific value, but I doubt one can truly enjoy all the prowess of the Vandersteens at 1.5 meters. I suspect that one would need close to 2.5 meters for proper driver integrating and all the benefits that come from the Vandersteens with such driver integration. If I recall correctly Vandersteen recommends a minimum of 40 Watts per channel for an appropriately place pair of Vandertsteen 2's. |
Actually, clipping refers to when the amp cannot reproduce the input signal correctly whereby the output waveform is actually and literally "clipped" at the upper signal level. for example, if you have a sine wave input to the amp and the amp clips, then the output signal will look like a sine wave until it reaches the peak and it will then plateau and flatten out. So the input signal looks like a clean sine wave and the output signal looks like a mountain plateau flat on the top. That is clipping. proper design prevents this, but sooner or later the amp will clip if the input signal is high enough outside the technical parameters of the amp. If the amp's maximum input level before clipping is say, 2 volts peak to peak, then if you exceed 2 volts input, the amp will clip. So the designers, among other things, design the amp so that whatever the maximum input signal possible from low level sources will be, the amp's output signal will not clip. Design specifications for amp include, but are not limited to,(legal speak), maximum input signal, minimum input signal, sensitivity, input impedance, output inpedance, gain, distortion, power output into rated load, ect. But, in designing the amp, I definitely need to know what the possible largest input signal will be so that I make sure the amp's output signal doesn't "clip" at that maximum input signal. Wow! does this bring back memories from Engineering design classes.
enjoy |
Atmas,
No I am aware of all that. Has nothing to do with my argument. I agree why many amps sound bad with digital (compared to vinyl) has nothing to do with the level of the recording.
It has more to do with the transients in digital recordings compared to most vinyl. PLaying a record is a physical process involving mass and inertia that inhibits the ability to deliver transients. The fact is historically most vinyl rigs/record players do not handle this very well, although many more modern, high tech and expensive rigs probably do better.
Often or typically the result is a natural and perhaps even pleasant filtering of transients that makes the signal easier for an amp to deliver. The more this occurs, the easier for the amp, often with pleasant sounding results nonetheless.
DIgital involves no physics of mass and inertia. THe challenges there are different but more solvable with technology as a result. In practice, the results with modern digital is often quite good and the technology to do a good job is not expensive. That was not the case early on with digital. The cost was reasonable but most stereos put together for use with vinyl and tape prior were not up to the task. Today, they are and also for fairly reasonable cost.
Of course I cannot prove any of this but that is my assessment based on my experience and observations over the years nonetheless. |
I have 4 ohm speakers being driven by a 150wpc into 4 ohm amp. Say I never go louder than 3 watts. I should have enough power for all peaks and dynamic events.
Say I then replace that 150wpc @ 4 ohm amp with one rated at 300wpc into 4 ohms. I still listen at 3 watts. Will I have gained anything? That is sort of the gist of this thread. The answer might best be put in terms of a percentage: that being that your chances are about 90% that you will be going backwards unless there is something exceptional about the amp. Digital in particular is very challenging for an amp to deliver peaks and transients. I am of the opinion that this has always been a major reason why digital does not sound good to many, ie their amp cannot deliver the peaks and transients accurately to the speakers. Mapman, I suspect you have a misconception about how digital recording works. Here it is in a nutshell: one of the processes of mastering a CD or other digital file type is something called 'normalization'. The problem is that digital media sounds its best when it uses all the available bits; if the record level was set low during the recording process (which it *has* to be- you cannot exceed 0 VU during recording else the recording is ruined) what we want to do is reset the level so that the highest peak in the recording is set to 0VU. So there is a certain maximum that all CDs exhibit (this allows you to go from CD to CD without having to change the volume; if you experience otherwise the CD at the lower volume level may not have been normalized). The idea that there are somehow 'peaks' in the recording that go any higher is simply incorrect. In fact an **analog** recording can to that- analog peaks can exist that are quite a bit in excess of the 0VU recording level! So there is a very different reason why some amps sound bad with digital- it certainly has nothing to do with the level of the recording. Back On Topic, its obvious that Digepix does not need more power. Sounds like the thing to be doing might be to look for more finesse since power is not so much an issue. |
If the sound levels increase and the sound continues to expand in proportion as you turn up the volume, that is a good indicator that clipping is under control.
If the sound stops getting louder in proportion to how much you increase the volume, even if you do not hear obvious distortion, clipping is probably in play.
This applies to any amp, tube or SS, although the audible distortion effects with the tube amp is likely to be significantly less and may seem non-offensive.
You would likely hear a difference in the dynamics and clarity of transients between any two amps, SS or tube, if one is clipping and the other is not, all other things aside, at least with some better and more challenging recordings. |
Pubul, that brings up a great point. SS isn't necessarily cheaper. New the YBA stuff was over $5K not that I spent that. The RM 10 is $1995, a Rogue Cronus Magnum integrated with 90 watts is $2200. In that regard tubes sound better and better as an option to high powered SS. I'll live with the YBA and save my money and next time I probably buy tubes. |
Agree with pubul that addressing clipping with a tube amp is different than for SS amps in general. Tube amps tend towards soft clipping which is more gradual and generally less offensive allowing for fewer watts.
Not all clipping occurs similarly however. Clipping always results in distortions, regardless of how offensive or not those may be, and is never a good thing. |
Since most music is played in the home with I'm guessing 1-3 watts on average, and all that additonal power is needed for handling short term transients, it might certainly explain why you need much lower power from a tube amp compared with an SS amp to play equally loud (why watts aren't watts) - you need a lot more reserve power in an SS amp to avoid the harsheness of SS clipping, while clipping is relatively smooth and unobtrusive with a tube amp - a major difference between the two.
It might explain why Roger Modjeski built himself a 35 watt tube amp, when he could build anything, to drive his 87db Vandersteens and thinking it was sufficient power. I suspect with SS you really do need that extra margin of reserve power to avoid the clipping nasties - fortunately SS watts come alot cheaper than tube watts. |
Mapman:
Thanks for your answer. |
"I have 4 ohm speakers being driven by a 150wpc into 4 ohm amp. Say I never go louder than 3 watts. I should have enough power for all peaks and dynamic events.
Say I then replace that 150wpc @ 4 ohm amp with one rated at 300wpc into 4 ohms. I still listen at 3 watts. Will I have gained anything? "
I'd say the answer is: it depends.
Digital in particular is very challenging for an amp to deliver peaks and transients. I am of the opinion that this has always been a major reason why digital does not sound good to many, ie their amp cannot deliver the peaks and transients accurately to the speakers. A good, well constructed amp selected specifically for its ability to drive the speakers efortlessly can. I have found that going with more power in general helps, especially as the volume goes up. THe amp has to be good. IF its a good amp, the extra power becomes an insurance policy at minimum. In general, I believe this is where one wants to be. |
